VA’s “CCN Next Gen” IDIQ: A $700B Re-Architecture of Community Care Purchasing, Oversight, and Incentives
In a January 23, 2026 report, Federal News Network’s Jared Serbu describes the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) preparations to award what VA officials characterize as a historically large services vehicle—an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract intended to restructure how VA manages and pays for veterans’ private-sector (“community”) care. The article situates the procurement as a successor to VA’s earlier Community Care Network contracts implemented after the MISSION Act’s 2018 enactment, noting that those arrangements are expiring and VA is now planning a single, consolidated vehicle with a total potential value of $700 billion over 10 years.
The central thesis advanced by VA leadership, as presented in the article, is governance: VA seeks to evolve from a largely “unmanaged” payer posture to a managed-care purchaser with clearer tools, controls, and performance levers. Richard Topping, VA’s Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer, argues that the program historically lacked mechanisms to drive quality, outcomes, and cost control, and that the new contract is designed to provide those capabilities while also making it easier for industry and community providers to participate in a payer-like ecosystem.
Structurally, the contract—named “Community Care Network Next Generation” (CCN Next Gen)—is framed as an effort to expand competition beyond large national insurers by allowing participation from smaller and regional firms that may not be able to operate at national scale. Topping describes an approach in which awardees gain a “seat at the table” to help design task orders alongside VA’s program management team, with initial task orders resembling the current model but with an intention to evolve toward more adaptable, local, and regional configurations. The planned period of performance includes a three-year base, three two-year option periods, and a final one-year option period; VA also anticipates using on-ramps and off-ramps to add new vendors and remove underperformers over time.
The article further emphasizes a shift in incentive design: VA intends to oversee performance using quality-oriented measures, including nationally recognized metrics referenced from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and to employ predictive analytics to identify patient safety events and reduce avoidable utilization. VA also plans to introduce value-based payment models, beginning with episode-based payments for lower-extremity joint replacements, and to add at least three additional alternative payment models over the contract’s life as data and expertise mature. Complementing this, VA describes planned utilization management, including active management of inpatient admissions, emergency department use, concurrent hospital reviews, and high-cost drugs administered in clinical settings.
Congressional oversight concerns feature prominently. The House Veterans Affairs Committee’s leadership expressed frustration that VA was slow to brief Congress on the initiative, with Chairman Mike Bost characterizing limits on discussion as inconsistent with Congress’s oversight role over spending at scale. Democrats raised concerns that the vehicle could accelerate privatization of care—particularly given that the article notes private providers already deliver more than 40 percent of veterans’ care through existing arrangements. Topping responds that VA—not contractors—controls referral decisions, eligibility determinations, and the direction of veterans to higher-quality, lower-cost providers, reflecting VA’s intent to retain clinical and programmatic control even while relying on contracted partners. Vendors seeking a position on the vehicle, the article reports, have until March 16 to submit proposals.
Disclaimer: This blog post summarizes a third-party publication for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, procurement, healthcare policy, or financial advice. Readers should consult the underlying source and appropriate professionals before relying on the information for decision-making.